Seven Suggestions to Simplify Our Elections

 

            With Election Day 2020 drawing near, I have been giving thought to the way in which we choose our political leaders in this country.  We have a good system, but it has room for improvement.  Certain things, in particular, tend to annoy me.  I do not have a degree in political science.  Neither do I know much about the law.  In fact, I do not know much about anything, to be honest.  But I still have a few thoughts that I am willing to share, knowing full well that I am just spitting into the wind.   So I will take my chances and humbly offer these seven suggestions.     

1.   1.  First, and Foremost, I am not a big fan of the Electoral College.

For a country that claims to be a democracy, I find it odd that we cannot choose our President.  We can only choose “electors” – a very small number of people who are supposed to be much smarter than we are – who in turn will choose the winner of the Presidential election.
We have about 328.2 million citizens in this country, yet we allow a mere 538 of them decide who will be President.  That is about 1.6 % of the nation deciding who will lead us.
Now, I know some will say, “So what?  We still decide who the electors will be, so in fact, we make the decision.”  Well, not really.  Here are just a few of the problems with the Electoral College.

a.       The concept of 1 person = 1 vote does not hold true. 
Of the 50 states in this country, only one has the same percentage of citizens in comparison to the nation, as they have electors.  That is the State of Washington, which has 2.23% of the nation’s population, and 2.23% of the Electors.  Of the remaining 49 States, 18 have a slightly higher percentage of the population than they do the Electors, while 31 share a higher percentage of electors than their population.  As a general rule, the States with the highest populations tend to be slightly under-represented in the Electoral College.  Conversely, those States that have the least amount of people are disproportionately over-represented.  I believe the primary reason for this is because every state, regardless of its population, is granted two Senators.  Probably the fairest way to assign electors would be to use the number of House seats and skip the Senate seats.  For example, Pennsylvania has 18 members in the House of Representatives.  So, rather than granting Pennsylvania 20 Electors (18 for the House and 2 for the Senate), grant them 18, because that number is rooted in the population.

b.      There is also the problem with how the varied states control the electors.  It seems to me that it would be fair to assign electors proportionately according to the popular vote.  If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state by, say, 52%, he or she should get 52% of the electors.  The remaining electors should be awarded to other candidates in the same way.  However, I believe this is only done in two states – Maine and Nebraska.  In the remaining 48 states it is a winner-take-all stakes.  Thus, a candidate could, potentially, win the state by 1 vote but walk away with all the electors.  That is not my idea of democracy.

There is a movement under way known as the National Popular Vote compact.  It would make the electors of a state vote for the candidate that won the national popular election rather than the popular election within the state.  The National Popular Vote compact is approved by individual states.  At this point, 15 states have joined the movement, representing 196 electoral votes of the needed 270 to win.

c.       This may seem a bit trivial, but in the case of a really close election I want to see each vote count.  Five times in our history a candidate lost the popular vote but still was named President by the Electoral College.  The first time was in 1824, when there were four candidates running, all members of the same party, but no one had enough votes to be declared winner.  According to the 12^th Amendment, the House of Representatives must then decide the winner.  John Quincy Adams proved to be the successful candidate.

Interestingly, in the remaining four occasions, the Republican candidate always ended up losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college and thus was declared winner.  I don’t know if that means anything, considering that the two parties have changed over the years.  But I still am fascinated by it.

d.      What makes this especially concerning now is the fact that this has happened twice in the past five elections.  It feels like the more polarized and partisan we become as a nation, the less effective our electoral process is becoming.

There are some good arguments for and against the Electoral College system.  For me, I believe its time has expired.  I say, eliminate it.  One resource I really like is Ballotpedia.com.  You can check it out here: https://ballotpedia.org/Electoral_College

2.      2.  Gerrymandering.

The practice of drawing Congressional districts has long been abused.  I am not sure how it is done in other States, but in my home of Pennsylvania, a separate five-member committee is created to map out the districts once every ten years, immediately after the most recent census.  The committee consists of the Majority and Minority Leader in both the State House and Senate, plus one additional person selected by these four.  The fifth member is the Chair.  Typically, the Chair is a member of the Majority Party, which means this Party has an advantage in deciding the map. 

Gerrymandering is the name given to creating disjointed, odd-looking districts designed to favor one party over the other.  This is especially seen in the Pennsylvania Legislature.  Among registered voters in PA, 48% are Democrats, 39% are Republicans,  8% are Independent, and 5% are members of other parties.  Yet in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives there are 109 Republicans and 93 Democrats.  In the Senate there are 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats.  Each chamber currently has one vacant seat.  These ratios have been extremely consistent over the past 30 years.  For example, in 1992 the Senate was evenly divided with 25 members from each Party.  Beginning in 1994 The Republicans have always held a decided majority.  The House has similar results, with the exception of 2006 and 2008, when the Democrats held a slim majority.  Meanwhile, the Governor’s office was in Democratic hands for 17 years since 1992, and Republican hands for 12 years.  This suggests a disconnect between the way the districts are drawn compared to the entire Commonwealth.

I do not really have the solution for overcoming gerrymandering.  It would require a major overhaul of the entire State government.  Because Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth, rather than a State, the individual counties are given a little more autonomy than in some States.  County lines do not change.  Therefore, I am inclined to suggest that electoral districts should be somehow drawn around county lines.  In other words, no district should exist by claiming a portion of two or more counties.  The counties of Philadelphia and Allegheny (Pittsburgh) will no doubt need to have multiple districts, and I will need to think that through a bit.  But none of those districts should include any area outside their respective counties. 

The goal should be to more accurately reflect the entire population when preparing representation.  Pennsylvania was forced to redraw their districts recently following a court decision, and it is much better now than it was.  Still, the problem remains that this can change following the 2020 Census.

3.      3.  Make Election Day a National Holiday.

Finding time to vote while working full time can be problematic for some, depending on how many polling stations there are compared to the number of voters.  In recent years some places have experienced tremendously long and frustrating waits just to cast a vote.  If Election Day were a Federal holiday, the wait time may be the same, but the tension may lesson.  Good grief, Columbus Day is a Federal holiday, but Election Day is not!  I mean, give me a break!  This makes absolutely no sense.

Along this same line I personally would like to see the primary election held the same day throughout the entire country.  The current practice invites a longer, drawn-out process.  Our legislators should do their job of legislating, rather than campaigning.

4.      4.  Limit the Election Season

I am really frustrated with the long, drawn out election process in this country.  I am referring primarily to national elections.  A Presidential campaign typically last about two years these days.  It takes at least a year to run a primary campaign, and the better part of another year for the actual election.  This is way too long.  A candidacy should not be allowed to be announced until perhaps January of the election year.  I would even prefer waiting until March 30^th, but that is unlikely.

The current system heightens frustration and causes a mental shutdown on the part of many.  We simply cannot bear the overload of political banter.

5.      5.  Get Money Out of Politics

According to the Washington Post the 2016 Election cost a total of $6.5 billion.  Let that sink in for a minute.  $6.5 billion!  Does anyone think that money could have been spent more effectively?  I would prefer if all political campaigns were publicly funded.  The way it is now, the one who raises the most money stands the best chance of winning.  There is nothing democratic about that.  Many people are concerned about foreign interference in our election process, and rightly so.  It is a proven fact that foreign powers seek to influence the outcome in a way that favors them.  That is extremely dangerous.  Equally dangerous is the practice of buying an election.  We are not a plutocracy.  Or at least, we are not supposed to be.  The reality, however, reveals that we are.  Somehow, we must come up with a plan where candidates are given a set sum of money to work with.  I admit, this needs more thought.  The downside is that taxes will likely increase a bit to pay for it.  But I am convinced it would be worth it.  If candidates did not need to raise money to finance their campaigns, I am sure there would be less lies and less exaggerations intended to appeal to the donors.  Furthermore, money breeds corruption.  Big time donors who help a candidate get elected by dangling huge sums of money their way expect that “their” candidate will dance to their tune.  In other words, the person holding the money might as well be the same person holding the office, because they have set themselves up to possess tremendous influence over their candidate.

6.      6.  Rescind Citizens United

Citizens United is the natural result of campaign spending run amuck.  This Supreme Court decision may have done more to destroy our system than anything else.  It is totally sinful to think of the sums of money raised by these Super-PACS, with essentially no accountability.  Whenever huge sums of money are allowed to be used without oversight, corruption is inevitable.

7.      7.  Eliminate the Party Conventions

I will say this for the coronavirus:  it has taught us to think differently.  Political conventions are a total waste of time and money.  They are nothing more than outlandish pep rallies and, I suspect, drunken madness.  Continuing on the thought that there is too much money in politics, I suggest we downsize the conventions, conduct them virtually, and simplify things.

So there you have it.  Seven Suggestions to Simplify Our Elections.  Much more needs to be said.  This is intended to be nothing more than a starting point for discussion.  I would look forward to hearing your thoughts and suggestions.  I believe we need to constantly be evaluating ourselves and seeking to improve the way we do things.  Anything less is surrender.

 

 G. D. Gehr

Please share any comments you may have by using the link below.